Do you like that OS X now has yearly releases?

[colonel179]

What are your thoughts about Mac OS X being released with a new update every year?

In my opinion, yearly releases have affected OS X quality A LOT. The design and features are rushed, because they don't have time since they have to work on next year's version as soon as possible. There has been a lot of inconsistencies due to the rushed release.

When OS releases took several years, it allowed Apple to really focus on little details and deliver a finished product. Yes, it was never perfect, but it was a polished product when it came out.

I remember when they released Leopard. It was the first OS with a major design overhaul and it was done near perfectly. This time, with the new design of Yosemite, it's all over the place, with icons being inconsistent with the design, and features not working properly; Dark Mode look horrible (at least in non-retina Macs). There is a lot of things that need to be fixed. However, features and design inconsistencies will take several updates to be fixed since they have so little time to address them. If they leave one icon looking like the old design, it could take until 10.12 (will they keep going with 10.XX after Yosemite?) to get changed.

What I'm trying to say, is that for a computer OS, I think it's no good to get major updates so fast. If they will keep releasing OS X each year, they should have like two or three teams, so that the actual development of the OS would be 2 or 3 years.

Another thing that I miss about having to wait longer for OS X releases, is that they usually came with new Macs. So whenever you had to buy a new Mac, it would probably came with the new OS. (my Macs last 4 to 5 years).

At least OS X is now free. That's a good thing.

 

[xmichaelp]

Not sure how the icons don't match the design. Apple never specified that it was a "flat" UI, the icons don't need to have depth. Apple can do whatever they want with it. The icons fit just fine with the rest of the UI to me.

Also dark mode looks just fine on my non-retina displays. No worse than regular anyways.

Either way the UI will be all figured out by the GM release or one of the .0.x upgrades then it will just be back to features for the next OS X editions.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

We are at the point where there isn't that much to add to the OS. Before, there was a greatly improved new version of the graphics framework, the audio framework, the TCP/IP stack, etc. Today, most of these features are fully mature and developed. There are small features like adding Facebook, Twitter and other social media integration. But for the foundation of the OS, it's essentially mature.

Software development today is moving towards the "agile" development mindset. Many factors change at very fast paces these days. If you wait 2-3 years (or longer) to release something major, the features you thought were relevant in the beginning may not be relevant anymore. Basically, we're moving from revolutionary to evolutionary (or incremental). This is sad because the delta of progress between major numbered releases isn't as much as before. But this is good because software can adopt to changing paradigms quicker. Also, OS releases are more and more becoming free. The last 2 (or more I can't remember) OS X releases were free.

 

[JoelBaka]

Having 2 or 3 teams seems like a nice idea, however I don't know how they could be working on an OS more advanced than the one that isn't even out yet. Like SnowLeopard said, it's more evolution right now and everything goes really fast... But I like your idea, how do you see it working?

And Dark Mode looks wonderfull on my non-retina Macbook

Click!

 

[bmac89]

It could be good or bad. If it is a matter of minor tweaking and refining like Leopard - Snow Leopard then I see no problems. If it is trying to pack in lots of new features or a total overhaul then yes I think it would be too rushed.

 

[RobFog]

[…]I remember when they released Leopard. It was the first OS with a major design overhaul and it was done near perfectly.[…]

Visually perhaps but according to the Apple folks I know 10.5 was one of the buggiest OS X releases ever.

 

[misterclutch]

Yes that's great. So It's only IOS 8 that would be released this Wednesday and not OSX Yosemite?

 

[nightlong]

It is ridiculous ... I have spent So many hours with Apple Support trying to solve Mavericks issues. And even still one major issue isn't solved. They haven't got this OS right yet and here comes a new one!

I use computers for my work but like most people my work is not about computers, I just need this stuff to work. So I'm going to delay upgrading from now on, until the OS is midway or even later in its cycle.

 

[pickaxe]

We are at the point where there isn't that much to add to the OS.

Seriously?
1) GPU optimization in OS X is still abysmal compared to Windows and Linux and Apple is very slow in adopting current technologies
2) native video codec support is completely broken as of Mavericks, making Quicktime almost useless and severely handicapping Quick Look
3) multi monitor support may have improved in Mavericks, but it's still ridiculous and very unpredictable. Say you have an iTunes window on monitor #2 and have had it there for several days now. You go to iTunes -> Preferences and it opens in... monitor #1. Even though you never had any iTunes window in monitor #1 since the app was launched.

and that's just off the top of my head - all very obvious stuff that is never going to get fixed in such a tight release schedule.

 

[clukas]

We are at the point where there isn't that much to add to the OS. Before, there was a greatly improved new version of the graphics framework, the audio framework, the TCP/IP stack, etc. Today, most of these features are fully mature and developed. There are small features like adding Facebook, Twitter and other social media integration. But for the foundation of the OS, it's essentially mature.

Software development today is moving towards the "agile" development mindset. Many factors change at very fast paces these days. If you wait 2-3 years (or longer) to release something major, the features you thought were relevant in the beginning may not be relevant anymore. Basically, we're moving from revolutionary to evolutionary (or incremental). This is sad because the delta of progress between major numbered releases isn't as much as before. But this is good because software can adopt to changing paradigms quicker. Also, OS releases are more and more becoming free. The last 2 (or more I can't remember) OS X releases were free.

You make a good point. However I still do believe that features such as facebook, twitter integration could have been handled via an update. Annual updates such as done by apple are entirely their choice, personally I would be ok with a longer development cycle. The problem with fast iterations is that it can break certain software/ apps requiring developers to issue frequent updates. I would much prefer that apple labelled such updates as feature packs (i.e. facebook integration, notification center etc.) but its not the way apple doe s things.

 

[SarcasticJoe]

I don't think the complaint about fewer features is really valid when in the time that you used to get one version, you now get two. A proper comparison would be one 2 year version to two 1 year versions.

I personally haven't seen much of a drop in quality and I remember all the problems that came up with 10.5, so I don't think the argument about more issues being valid ether. It may feel like there's more problems if you just look at the number of people complaining, but there's a lot more people using OSX today than there was back when 10.5 was released. Thus there's naturally going to be a lot more people complaining about various problems.

When it comes to comparisons to Windows I'm glad Apple hasn't taken the same approach of sweeping changes for the sake of sweeping changes. Making an OS that had a sort of schizophrenia with it's two different UI's was probably one of the biggest blunders Microsoft has ever undertaken. There's a reason why the main architect behind Windows 8 no longer works at Microsoft.

As a "If it ain't broke - Don't fix it" kind of guy, I don't mind the reskin they're giving OSX in Yosemite as the underlying functionality stays pretty much the same. I would have liked another update to the OpenGL side of things, but there's only so much you can squeeze into a yearly release cycle. So if not this year, then maybe next year as they won't have a full UI reskin to take up their time.

 

[Sound214]

Your point of Yosemite being unfinished, with UI inconsistencies and bugs, is invalid; it's not out yet! If, by the time of release, it still has bugs and UI issues due to it being rushed, I can accept your despair.

 

[S.B.G]

What are your thoughts about Mac OS X being released with a new update every year?

In my opinion, yearly releases have affected OS X quality A LOT. The design and features are rushed, because they don't have time since they have to work on next year's version as soon as possible. There has been a lot of inconsistencies due to the rushed release.

When OS releases took several years, it allowed Apple to really focus on little details and deliver a finished product. Yes, it was never perfect, but it was a polished product when it came out.

I remember when they released Leopard. It was the first OS with a major design overhaul and it was done near perfectly. This time, with the new design of Yosemite, it's all over the place, with icons being inconsistent with the design, and features not working properly; Dark Mode look horrible (at least in non-retina Macs). There is a lot of things that need to be fixed. However, features and design inconsistencies will take several updates to be fixed since they have so little time to address them. If they leave one icon looking like the old design, it could take until 10.12 (will they keep going with 10.XX after Yosemite?) to get changed.

What I'm trying to say, is that for a computer OS, I think it's no good to get major updates so fast. If they will keep releasing OS X each year, they should have like two or three teams, so that the actual development of the OS would be 2 or 3 years.

Another thing that I miss about having to wait longer for OS X releases, is that they usually came with new Macs. So whenever you had to buy a new Mac, it would probably came with the new OS. (my Macs last 4 to 5 years).

At least OS X is now free. That's a good thing.

I don't mind the annual release and thus far I've had no serious complaints about the quality of the OS's.

Time in development doesn't always mean a quality product. Take for instance Microsoft and Windows Vista. It took Redmond several years to ship it and when it finally did, it flopped.

While more time in the oven can be a good thing, it's not always going to mean that it will happen.

It depends on the people doing the work and that they are able to do quality work and followup on the developers and beta testers bug reports and act upon them.

That's kind of why I think Apple started doing a public beta this time around, to get more people exposed to it and get more feedback as well.

 

[Crazy Badger]

Just choose to upgrade every few years at the end of the X.X.X cycle where the OS is pretty much sorted. You'll see far more changes and with all the bugs ironed out - simple

 

[827538]

I like it.

It's worked fairly well for iOS (except for the rocky start of iOS 7 - 7.1 sorted it for me). It allows for constant iterative improvement and refinement rather than one whopping great big splurge every 3-5 years which usually results in a large number of bugs, incompatibility issues, teething problems, fragmentation of the user base.

Keeping it free and regular means more of your users remain up to date with the latest standards and features. It's something fresh and good to look forward to and keeps things from stagnating (like Windows).

I definitely think it has it's downsides, a new OS X file system would be nice. I also wouldn't mind if Apple said 'right we are not going to realise a new OS this year but will take two years or even three in order to work on big big changes'. I really like OS X and where it's heading - some don't but after coming from a Windows background I really enjoy it. Even Safari is pretty dam good - something I have never said about IE.

 

[Eithanius]

Just choose to upgrade every few years at the end of the X.X.X cycle where the OS is pretty much sorted. You'll see far more changes and with all the bugs ironed out - simple

You don't see the problem do you...?

The fact that Apple chose a yearly cycle means there isn't enough time to iron out the bugs before introducing the next set of features on the next major release which means more bugs accumulated. And current unsolvable problems get pushed to the next major releases, and that means at some point when 10.X.5 is released, lingering bugs that bus your productivity will not be solved UNLESS you upgrade.

Case in point - the audio stuttering bug that plagued some of the hardware on 10.8. Apple didn't fixed it until 10.9. Luckily hardware requirements for 10.9 remained the same.

Look at Finder, it has been slow since Mountain Lion... Even now on Yosemite, it is still not fixed. I suspect it may only be fixed when 10.11 comes...

And if your machine cannot handle that upgrade, you're pretty much stuck with those problems forever until you buy a new Mac...

This is where the downside of annual cycle releases whether or not you chose to skip OS X versions for a few years.

----------

Keeping it free and regular means more of your users remain up to date with the latest standards and features. It's something fresh and good to look forward to and keeps things from stagnating (like Windows).

I definitely think it has it's downsides, a new OS X file system would be nice. I also wouldn't mind if Apple said 'right we are not going to realise a new OS this year but will take two years or even three in order to work on big big changes'. I really like OS X and where it's heading - some don't but after coming from a Windows background I really enjoy it. Even Safari is pretty dam good - something I have never said about IE.

Can you please STOP COMPARING OS X and Windows...?

This thread is about the quality of OS X releases between the old but stable 2-year cycle and the bug-ridden annual cycle.

 

[Jessica Lares]

I feel like it's not enough time to enjoy the OS and software. iTunes 11 came, and quickly is being replaced by 12 just for the sake of being consistent with Yosemite. Of course there are some new things, but they could have easily been brought into 11.

I can see them backpedaling a bit in 10.11 too.

 

[Eithanius]

I can see them backpedaling a bit in 10.11 too.

You can see Apple's future...?

 

[clukas]

You can see Apple's future...?

He has exclusive access to the iForesee .

 

[Paradoxally]

Not really. I feel most of the releases were rushed and you really never get to "appreciate" one version as the next one comes out only a year after. I'm much more of a fan of the Windows release cycles - every 2-3 years. This is a desktop OS, I don't need tons of new features at the cost of stability and reliability.

Ever since Snow Leopard (considered by me and many the best OS Apple has ever released), it has been a rocky road:

- Lion was downright terrible. Slow, full of bugs, horrible autosave, no Exposé, the list goes on. I lost count of the times I downgraded back to SL that year because I couldn't stand Lion.

- ML fixed many of the issues with Lion and it was way more stable.

- Mavericks improved on ML and made it consume less power, great for notebooks. It is also my favorite release to date - as of 10.9.4, it is stable, extremely fast, and looks good (no linen but also no translucency or pointless blurs like Yosemite). That being said, I've seen many people with issues on this OS, but it varies. They probably had less issues with Lion unlike me. It's just my experience.

- Yosemite will be a miss from me. Not planning to upgrade as I'll wait to see what Apple has in store for 10.11. There aren't enough changes to justify upgrading and the UI changes actually turn me off completely.

 

[Crazy Badger]

You don't see the problem do you...?

I don't think there is a problem, but some people will always find one

Are you suggesting 10.3 - 10.6 didn't have any bugs when they were released? If so, why did we end up with 10.3.9 and 10.6.8? These weren't just to add additional functionality mid-release.

Software always has, and always will be released with bugs, especially something as complex as an OS. I think Apple have a pretty robust testing program in place now, improved further by the public beta testing for 10.10. Even with millions of testers, and serveral iterations, things can still slip through the net but in the main they don't stop task being performed. They might be inconvenient for some, and might not be a priority to fix, but eventually they are, in some cases because the whole code is replaced with something new.

If software developers never released software until it was 100% bug-free I don't think we'd ever see new software released, and certainly not on a 2 year upgrade cycle.

I prefer small incremental changes and improvements in functionality rather than a radical big-bang type approach, but appreciate not everyone is the same. From experience, I'd like to bet I'm in the majority though

 

[Eithanius]

I don't think there is a problem, but some people will always find one

Are you suggesting 10.3 - 10.6 didn't have any bugs when they were released? If so, why did we end up with 10.3.9 and 10.6.8? These weren't just to add additional functionality mid-release.

I'm not denying 10.3 to 10.6 are bug free when launched. What I'm saying is that many people (maybe even you) may not understand that by shortening the time between cycles, less bugs get squashed, more bugs get left in the wild, unpatched. In the end, every 10.X.5 releases result in the entire OS being half-baked, as opposed to stable and efficient 10.3 thru 10.6. Meaning when you get to 10.X.5, there are still bugs around, while you have to endure another round of fresh bug hunting on the next 10.Xi.0...

I'd prefer to stay on a stable 10.X.9 for my work before venturing out on the next OS cycle, maybe 10.Xi.3...

Do you still not understand...?

 

[quackers82]

I would rather they were not on the annual release cycle. Feels more like change for change sake. Change when they have signifiant amount of new features fine, but they should keep polishing the existing version and get the bugs gone as much as possible.

Im still on 10.8 on my personal Mac and 10.9 on my work Mac. I will jump to 10.10 on personal Mac only because of handoff, else i would have carried on 10.8 i like it and its not really that old.

 

[zen]

It is ridiculous ... I have spent So many hours with Apple Support trying to solve Mavericks issues. And even still one major issue isn't solved. They haven't got this OS right yet and here comes a new one!

Yeah, I must admit that these days, if I find a bug in OS X, whether in the UI, or something functional, or even if it's not really a bug but more a piece of unrefined or unfinished design, I just assume that that's the way it is and Apple won't fix it. Seems to be the way they work now. There are lots of examples, even just minor stuff - like iOS 8 is almost here and the Apple podcasts app in iOS 7 is still buggy and unstable. Or iTunes 12 gets a weird redesign while iTunes Match is still a buggy, broken system.

I wouldn't mind a two-yearly cycle where you have a major release in year 1, and a big maintenance release year 2. So like we had Leopard then Snow Leopard, Lion then Mountain Lion, etc - if that maintenance release really did nail down all the bugs and make that a tight, functional OS with no glitches.

Shame we have missed out on Mavericks: Big Wave, or whatever it might have been called

 

[taedouni]

Okay so listen up. OSX may be on an annual refresh but that doesn't mean that it's a bad idea. So Lion introduced quite a bit of stuff. Mountain Lion introduced a few more things but polished Lion. Then Mavericks was released and made OSX more efficient and quicker. Yosemite is probably the largest update to OSX since Lion. My point is that Apple isn't rushing stuff out. By the way, do you really think that they started to develop Yosemite once Mavericks was released? If so , you're wrong. They more than likely had a team dedicated to Yosemite while Mavericks was still going through beta. I think that Yosemite has been in the works for at least 1.5 years.